Is Severus Snape's story more powerful if his motivation was initially Lily?

[fatairuq.livejournal.com]

I have loved Severus since I first read the Harry Potter books. Before the Snape discourse in Tumblr, I basically felt annoyed at how J K Rowling (JKR from here on) explained his motivations in DH. As someone who has gone through everything he went through except for poverty, I felt that she robbed us off one of the most important representations abuse and bullying survivors ever. You see prior to the Prince's Tale, Severus was angry and bitter even his thirties, he was competent in his line of work as a Professor, Potioneer and spy, he fell in with a fascist cult in order to survive and get ahead in life, and then he redeemed himself. He's everything survivors aren't allowed to be. He is the epitome of Bad Victim. To be Good Victims, we're supposed to forgive those who hurt us, be kind and compassionate to everyone without fail, work in small business or social work because we're not cut out for anything bigger, and while we are expected to help ourselves without support systems, we need someone us to guide us to redemption.

After the discourse which highlighted Severus' association with Lily to a ridiculous level, I hated that chapter even more. I could understand Severus loving Lily for years after her death because she seemed to be the only who gave half a crap about him but enduring torture, hate and even killing someone he cared about just for Lily? It felt so cheap. JKR didn't seem to think a Slytherin could do good and if they do it's for a Gryffindor. She takes this complex character, one of the few in her books, and constantly reduces his reasons to Lily and Severus' bitter, petty tendencies. It was maddening. I spent hours thinking about it and I'm starting to change my mind.

The truth is people don't trust survivors. It's why so many villains are survivors of some kind of violence. They think we're backstabbers and that we are taught to be selfish and violent. In pop culture Bad Victims aren't often loyal to anyone but themselves and if they are it's usually loyalty to another antagonist. Severus Snape is different. The people he is loyal to are considered the best people in canon. Lily is practically a saint and Dumbledore is a deity. Severus' loyalty is steadfast and it helps him do a lot of good. It could potentially be a powerful story on its own.

The problem is I'm not sure. I could be forcing myself to justify what felt like the flattest part of the series. What do you guys think?

Comments

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

For someone who can be as bitter as Snape, I'd think that a false friend would be worse than an honest enemy.

Much worse. She was his friend, we're shown their friendship as children. She grew apart from him, then turned her back on him, which he would see as a betrayal.

Therefore, the lesson is that just because someone is unpleasant doesn't necessarily mean that they're an evil person. *snip* No, the only reason that a harsh and nasty man could ever do the right thing is because he had an unrequited crush.

Right. The 'mean teacher' isn't mean because he or she likes to torture students, it's because he or she is concerned about the student's progress. Might not be as dramatic as fighting trolls and evil masterminds plastered to the back of someone's head, but it's a reason that has to do with the teacher's core motivations and nothing to do with the student's sainted parents or some other outside force. Totally negates the 'mean teacher's' self-actualization.

I did see Severus/Lily coming up from the minute Petunia refused to specify who that 'awful boy' was. Seemed like a good 'gotcha' reveal. Her switch from her childhood friend to his bully (and I didn't see James as a continuing bully character, but that happened) came out of left field for me.